You know, I've always wondered if the fact that 'only a sith deals in absolutes' line was actually intended as an indicator that the Jedi were seriously fucked in the philosophy department, or if the writers (Lucas?) just didn't realize that it was an absolute statement.

By that logic, if all you need is 'trust,' why have trials? Can't we 'trust' that the police got the right man? Can't we 'trust' that the DA has his facts in order?

could verify your statement

Seriously? He's talking about a video game, not nuclear disarmament treaties.

read more about Double Fine's plans.

The Googles are broken for you, are they?

This is pretty much my calculation. I don't swap glasses, I use progressive bifocals (the newer ones which have multiple focus zones rather than being totally continuous so that you can pretty much always have your workpiece in focus). Even if my vision without glasses was 20-20, I'd still need progressive bifocals, since I need multiple focal points to deal with my daily work (focus point for viewing computer monitor, focus point for viewing iDevice in my hand, focus point for viewing the speedometer in my car, focus point for dealing with tiny screws in computer cases, etc.). Given that, what's the point? I still end up needing glasses, I just add a bit of needless risk to the equation too.

Go find an early printing of D&D, and look for halfings. You won't find them. You'll find hobbits, though.

Nothing GPL'd is free. They expect payment in the form of new code, and word-of-mouth advertising (you must make available the code, leave the GPL boilerplate on, yadda yadda).

You state that there is no 'center,' extreme, liberal, conservative, left, right, etc etc.

I find this odd, as 'left,' 'right,' 'liberal' and 'conservative' are political definitions. It's like saying there's no such thing as 'sweet' versus 'sour.'

The American system, of course, boils lib and con down to absurd extremes, and assumes an all-or-nothing take; pro choice? you're also pro gun control, etc etc.

Then you categorize some choices as 'evil.' Can you expound on that a bit?

Yes, straight-ticket voting is horrid. But again, in a multi-party system, things tend to balance out towards the center. In a first-past-the-post system, the two sides are encouraged to move to the extremes.

Actually, I'm a proud socialist of Canuckistan. And our system certainly has it's quirks and foibles (and outright stupidities) as well, don't get me wrong.

It's better principles, maybe, but it also guarantees that your vote is tossed away.

The system, as is, is designed to not allow third parties to win. Therefore, by voting third-party, you're implicitly not voting for a candidate that could actually win.

Like I said in another post, change the system. Somehow.

Well, America kinda half-asses it. One one hand, it's a republic, whereby you elect representatives. On the other hand, you vote directly on various propositions and what not. It's bloody weird.

And no matter how much evidence the US or Ukrainian government produces, no matter how detailed and annotated, Russia will dismiss it with a wave of a hand as fabricated, slanted, biased...whatever they want. They'll never admit responsibility.

Yes, because UN peacekeepers have such a long, sterling reputation on stopping stuff like this from happening.

But regardless, the UN will never do anything in this conflict. Russia holds a veto in the Security Council, and they will stop any such measures from ever happening.

No, see, that's the problem. You, as a voter, are presented with a choice. Do you vote for the candidate you actually want, knowing full well that the American system, as currently implemented, is specifically geared against third-party candidates? Or do you game the system, and aim for the best realistic outcome?

It's a democracy.

Given that the American government setup was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to avoid 'too much democracy,' I'd have to disagree with you, champ.